The point is this: no mass movement can last much more than 5 years, and what such a movement does not accomplish in that period will not be accomplished until another movement arises.
One simply can NOT develop slowly against capitalism or for a major reform. Andyou can NOT maintain a radical institution for more than a decade or two. Science and Society seems one exception, and Monthly Review another. But thse are exceptions. The opposite is the rule.
Carrol
-----Original Message----- From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org] On Behalf Of Marv Gandall Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2010 6:15 AM To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] feeling good
On 2010-11-23, at 12:30 AM, Dennis Claxton wrote:
> At 08:38 PM 11/22/2010, Marv Gandall wrote:
>
>> It's not plausible that these leaders, in many countries over many
generations, were all, or even mostly, treacherous opportunists who
consciously misled their supporters about their intentions while seeking
office.
>
> Maybe. But I think it's plausible that those who weren't treacherous
opportunists would not have made it into office without an invitation and
help from others who were.
That's true. Ultimately they're all products of the conservatizing and corrupting political culture of capitalism and are increasingly affected by it the closer they get to power. They wouldn't be allowed to govern or exercise leadership in mass organizations if they did not accommodate themselves by degrees to the system. Those who turn against it are removed from office, marginalized, jailed, or shot, as conditions dictate, by the ruling class, abetted by "treacherous opportunists". ___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk